Posted on 02/05/2016 6:08:19 AM PST by HomerBohn
The Obama administration is obsessed with race and sex. Many know about the administration's scheme to collect information on the racial composition of American communities in an effort to force neighborhoods to "diversify." Now the government is applying the same philosophy to businesses in order to "equalize" wages. It's an effort, critics point out, that will make it harder for white men to find jobs. Writes the New York Post's Betsy McCaughey:
Claiming women aren't getting paid enough, President Obama wants to make it easier to accuse employers of gender discrimination and hit them with class-action lawsuits. A new regulation proposed on Friday will require all employers with 100 or more workers to report how much their workforce is paid, broken down by race and [sex].
The rule, slated to go into effect in September 2017, will cause headaches for employers and anyone -- man or woman -- who works hard and expects to get ahead based on merit. The winners are federal bean counters, class-action lawyers and the Democratic Party, which is playing up the [inter-sex] "wage gap" as usual during this election year.
McCaughey points out that this regulation will hit white men the hardest, and this is echoed by American Thinker's Thomas Lifson:
Your employer will have to lump workers into 12 salary bands. If you're a white male up for a raise, but the band above yours already includes too many while males, tough luck. Your boss will be pressured to give the raise to a woman or minority to avoid triggering EEOC scrutiny.
This data collection is a godsend for EEOC regulators looking for targets, and it hands class-action lawyers the statistics they need on a silver platter.
Even worse: the presumption is that the employer discriminates, unless proven otherwise.
The "guilty until proven innocent" standard Lifson refers to seems to reflect "disparate impact" theory; this principle states that if a group cannot measure up to a standard as well as another group, that standard is by definition considered unjustly discriminatory. Applied by the government for decades, it has been used to compel police departments and other entities to scrap qualification exams because women and minorities underperformed on them. As an example, the Obama administration sued the Pennsylvania State Police in 2014 for treating women equally -- because doing so yielded unequal outcomes.
As for different salary outcomes in business, McCaughey explains the consequences of the new regulations:
Employers will have to change their policies to avoid these differences -- for example, not preferring the job applicant who has a college degree over the applicant who doesn't, unless the job can be shown to require college skills. The burden is on employers. It's assumed they're discriminating, in other words, and they have to prove they're not.
Jenny Yang, chairwoman of Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, defends the massive fishing expedition, saying, "pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid."
Of course, it's impossible not to discover pay "discrimination." All that term refers to is the process of choosing one or some from between/among two or many. And since meritocracy dictates we discriminate between the intelligent and the stupid, the educated and the ignorant, and the qualified and the unqualified -- and since groups have different proclivities and interests -- it follows that Yang cannot fail in her mission. But she clearly isn't interested in the real question: Are inter-group pay gaps actually caused by prejudice?
Demagogues love the slogan "Women make only 79 cents on a man's dollar!" Yet the same data-collection entities reporting that fact also tell us why -- and it has nothing to do with unfair discrimination. I explained this in the 2014 New American piece "Equal Pay for Equal Work: Means Paying Men More," but female commentators such as Carrie Lukas have made the same points. Here are some of the main factors influencing the inter-sex pay gap:
Men tend to choose more lucrative fields than women do (e.g., the hard sciences as opposed to the soft ones).
Related to the above, women avoid the most dangerous and dirtiest jobs -- such as iron-working and commercial fishing -- which often bring great compensation.
Full-time men work more hours on average than "full-time" women.
When climbing the corporate ladder, women are six times more likely than men to change positions and career tracks; consequently, men generally have more seniority and experience.
Women are more likely to decline promotions and "tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do," as Lukas wrote in 2007.
The reality is that women don't get less money for equal work -- they get less money for lesser work. Moreover, it seems that some pay gaps are more equal than others. There was much talk late last year about Hollywood actresses making less than actors (poor Jennifer Lawrence had to settle for $52 million, $28 million less than Robert Downey Jr.). Yet no one troubles over the top 10 female fashion models earning more than 10 times as much as their male counterparts do. And even among rank-and-file models, the women make 148 percent more.
But isn't this "sex discrimination"? Aren't the models doing equal work? This question gets at a generally ignored but central issue: What constitutes equal work, anyway?
Models don't get paid because they're capable of posing, wearing clothing, standing under hot lights or parading down runways; I could do that. They earn wages because their "work" helps satisfy a market -- and the female models command more because their "work" satisfies a bigger market than the men's work does. This is the same reason NBA players make more than WNBA players and heavyweight boxers generally out-earn lightweights. The "work" isn't just shooting baskets and throwing punches; it involves succeeding in, respectively, the NBA and heavyweight ranks.
This brings us to another significant point: Is it really true that sex and racial discrimination is always unjust? Consider that a quality integral to doing the women models' work is being female. If the male models were women, they might be able to do the same "work" and satisfy the market equally. There are many other such examples. As I wrote in 2014:
My local hardware store provides knowledgeable workers, all men, who render valuable advice on products and how to perform various home repairs. If it was determined that people found a female in that role less credible and were then not quite as likely to buy from the establishment, would even a highly competent woman be able to do "equal work" in that capacity?
What about the little West Indian restaurant, with all-black workers, I loved when I spent a few weeks in Tampa? If hiring a white person made the eatery seem less authentic and negatively affected its appeal, would that individual be able to do "equal work"? The same, of course, could be asked about a black person working in a German restaurant. In these cases race would be integral to the "work."
The reality is that the government has no idea what constitutes "equal work," yet it feels qualified to mandate equal pay. But while one might not expect bureaucrats to have pondered deeper issues such as the above, simple facts can be easily apprehended. And here's one: Women in the Obama White House make only 84 cents on every male staffer's dollar. Is this driven by bad intentions? If not, a desire to ascribe such motives to a wider society exhibiting the same phenomenon just might be driven by bad intentions itself.
I wonder what happens if you check the
“ other” box?
I guess it means that all white men will own all the companies.
How can it get any worse? white males already are not offered jobs.
-Maybe we can claim we are Native American / Pacific Islander and challenge ‘em to prove otherwise?-
If you were a liberal white woman who self-identified as an Indian at an ivy league school, that would work. But the government has EEO inspectors on government contracts, who, in my experience, have been black women, will audit to see that you are meeting your contractual obligations. Having a highly compensated minority employee who was not black would raise a flag. If that employee could not prove actual heritage, not self-identification, then the top brass who took the award fee and bonuses could face jail time. Unlike Hillary and her classified information, this is one that the DOJ would prosecute to the fullest.
And Barry’s already rolling out his plan to ruin decent suburbs with it.
Bingo. Problem solved. :-)
I once worked for a place and asked about my promotion prospects. I was told that the company (which did a lot of business with the feds) had too many white males as managers, and would not be promoting any for a while until that was fixed.
I left the next year.
That’s why Trump!-)
Since we can all self identify now, check which ever box gives you the best advantage. If I was still in the workplace, I sure would. Prove I’m not a black Hispanic woman. If enough people did this it would screw up the works.
Well, I am glad I did not resort to that, then.
Although, I MIGHT be able to prove Native American. Supposedly my father’s mother was part Cherokee on one side and part Apache on another...
I have 2 grandsons. I wonder if they will have any opportunity when they grow up?
-Although, I MIGHT be able to prove Native American. Supposedly my father’s mother was part Cherokee on one side and part Apache on another...-
The only government certified American Indian I ever met in government contracting was a red-cheeked, white-skinned, redheaded Irish descended man whose hippy parents had him on an Indian reservation. He had a card, which he pulled out and showed me. His scam was to be a minority contractor on government contracts. He ran a pass-through where he got the contract, gave them the minority credit and subcontracted the work. I think you have to have some tribe that acknowledges you as a member. I don’t think having the genes is sufficient. There are several real American Indian companies with government contracts. I never applied at one of those, but I did apply at a huge subcontractor that claims to be Arab woman owned and is run by her husband. All they did was managed jobs for other contractors so those contractors could have the credit. They probably increased the cost of each project by twenty percent of so. I didn’t get the job.
Oh well. So much for that idea. Need card from tribe, not genes...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.